Australia in the same boat as Sri Lanka?
| by Gajalakshmi Paramasivam
( January 4, 2014 - Melbourne - Sri Lanka Guardian) As per news that came through Tamil Broadcasting Corporation - London, today’s Australian Government is following in the footsteps of Hitler! As per this report:
“Australia’s conduct on Tamil deportations comparable to Hitler’s deniability on Jewish question: – Haig
Bruce Haig, a retired diplomat, a rights activist, and an expert witness to the Bremen People’s Tribunal established to adjudicate on whether Sri Lanka committed genocide on Tamil people, in an article appearing in Canberra Times, compared the “deniability adopted and refined by Hitler’s Third Reich towards the final solution of the Jewish question” to Rudd and Abbott’s Governments conduct over Tamil asylum seekers. Haigh said that Tamil witnesses from Sri Lanka told him that Australian diplomatic mission has been briefed adequately on the situation, and that he believes the Australian Government(s) have ignored these for reasons of policy and politics. “This would suggest that both major parties knowingly acted illegally with respect to processing Tamil asylum seekers,” Haig said.”
As per Canberra Times, Mr. Haig stated:
‘I took the opportunity at the hearings to ask some of the Tamil witnesses from within the country whether they thought the high commission was informed and they said yes, on the basis that they had briefed Australian diplomatic officers. This raises the question of what was done with that information. The assumption must be that it had gone to Canberra and had been ignored by government for reasons of policy and politics. This would suggest that both major parties knowingly acted illegally with respect to processing Tamil asylum seekers. How low can we go?
Lower, it seems. I was also informed that the high commission has now ceased briefings from Tamil sources in the north, presumably on the basis of what they don't know they don't have to lie about. A form of deniability adopted and refined by Hitler's Third Reich towards the final solution of the Jewish question.’
I am able to identify with the essence of the above discovery by Mr. Haig. I learnt my lesson about the Australian Government through my own direct experience during Mr. Howard’s time as Prime Minister. I made my parallel statements – direct to Mr. Howard first and then to the Australian Public through the official path available to me – the Australian Courts and direct contribution to Policy through letters to the Government. They were like research reports of my discoveries.
Through my Australian experience in which I accepted the ‘failure grades’ given to me, I was able to identify with the Truth in Sri Lankans on both side of the conflict. I did not need to ‘wait’ until Sri Lankans suffered as they did for their matter to go to a global tribunal. By honestly presenting my case –I confirmed that I was a global citizen practicing global laws of Equal Opportunity. Given that I did so as an Australian – as well as a Sri Lankan – those contributions are from both my countries. Ultimately, whether it is the Sri Lankan government or the Australian government, what matters is how we the people who believe in our respective nations receive the experience. This is usually not as per the laws of the country but rather a combination of our Truth through direct experience, our faith in those who have had the direct experience and our knowledge of rights and wrongs in relation to that issue in our current environment.
The environment of the Australian Prime Minister is certainly different to the environment of the Sri Lankan President. Hence faith based political decisions would be different in the two environments. Even the laws through which the official picture of why the tragedy happened would be different in the two countries. Hence the reasoning of witnesses would help those who are yet to find the Truth about their Government and / or their Judiciary. Those who have already realized the Truth about the limitations of their Governments – would use their own reasoning and not that of the witnesses. They are independent observers. Truth helps us become independent observers. We would know the Truth of others through our own Truth. Like the judgments that the Australian Judiciary delivered in relation to my complaints – these judges are also likely to deliver judgments are per their interpretation of what happened. This would help construct international laws. They are not likely to deliver the pathway for internal solution in Sri Lanka nor address the problem that the Australian Government is facing in relation to illegal immigrants. In both instances homegrown solutions are necessary not merely to ‘show’ others but more for us to construct our own thinking in relation to such issues and use them in our own local environments.
Ultimately we have to live with our own minds. Where the wrong construction is given to those who are looking to leaders, the mind of the citizen would carry the wrong construction. Given that we do not have clear laws applicable to developing countries in this regard, one needs to be driven by the projected outcomes based on one’s own research and/or experience, to know whether something is right or wrong for her/him/them as a group. Australians of non-Sri Lankan origin are largely surface readers in relation to the war in Sri Lanka. To them it is more about immigration. Hence the way Australian Government would treat Tamils from Sri Lanka would be different to how it would treat Indonesians especially Balinese. We need to ‘show’ our pain and loss through direct attacks and not make them ‘common’ with indirect risks from the likes of Sri Lankan Tamils. Such showing would be at a higher level when we sacrifice our earned benefits. They would then take the shape of new laws. Where decisions are political – we need to be driven by our own Truth when reading what happened.
Where decisions are as per policy we need to use institutional structures through which to present our stand. In terms of Sri Lankan Tamils Australia needs more of the latter and less of the former – be it to give boats for naval patrolling or in processing asylum applications. Those boats ought to have been ‘sold’ to Sri Lanka and not ‘gifted’. Gifts need to be quietly and confidentially done between those who are in the same boat. Using democracy, where Sri Lanka claims that Australia is not its big brother – it has the responsibility to act as an Equal in bilateral relationships. The Government owes it to the ordinary citizens. THAT more than anything else would in real terms prevent the ordinary Sri Lankan citizen – including Tamil citizen who believes in her/his homeland, from attributing undue credit to Australia. That is more likely to stop the boats.
All aid needs to be channeled through Common Governments. That which is shared internally in Common, needs to remain confidential – as in family. The rest needs to be made transparent through Business approach when bilateral or needs to be via common governments. That is also the basis of devolution for Sri Lankans at all levels of governance.